Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: ZFC and God
Posted:
Jan 26, 2013 4:50 PM
|
|
In article <ke0gdo$5s2$1@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>,
gus gassmann <gus@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/2013 10:58 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <87ip6kvhk1.fsf@phiwumbda.org>,
> > "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> >
> >> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> >>
> >>>> I'm not going to bother working through your addled analogy.
> >>>
> >>> You need not. Just ask yourself whether or not it is possible to
> >>> define in ZFC the set of all terminating decimal representations of
> >>> the real numbers of the unit interval. If you think that it is not
> >>> possible, then you should try to learn it. If you know it already,
> >>> then we can formally restrict ourselves to working in this set until
> >>> we discover a digit that is not defined in an element of this set.
> >>>
> >>> Your further questions then turn out meaningless.
> >>
> >> I asked how you define terminating decimal representation. How is
> >> that meaningless?
> >>
> >> Here's the definition I suggested again. Please tell me if you agree
> >> with it, and if not, what definition you have in mind.
> >>
> >> Let x be a real number in [0,1]. We say that x has a terminating
> >> decimal representation iff there is an f:N -> {0,...,9} such
> >> that
> >>
> >> x = sum_i f(i) * 10^-i,
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> (En)(Am > n)(f(m) = 0) or (En)(Am > n)(f(m) = 9)
> >>
> >> If x has no terminating decimal representation, then we say that x is
> >> non-terminating.
> >>
> >> We cannot continue unless I know what you mean by terminating decimal
> >> representation.
> >
> > WM finds precise careful definitions far too restricting for his
> > maunderings in Wolkenmuekenheim, so will resist either providing one
> > himself or accepting anyone else's.
>
> I suspect he is threatened by them. He cannot work through the (En) and
> (Am) notation and all that stuff, so he denies, denies, denies. He is
> all bluster, with absolutely zero understanding or hope of understanding
> even the simplest mathematical concepts.
>
> That's why he cannot let himself be pinned down by Jesse's definitions.
> He cannot understand them, so he cannot control them. He is, above all,
> a control freak.
It appears hat Jesse has finally managed to get WM to produce a concrete
definition and has used it to good advantage.
--
|
|
